Euro 2012 draw Sunday 7th February from 11 a.m.

GuanYin

CHD wrote: »

Same kind of thing was said around this time 2 years ago. How true it was.....

Oh, wait.

Yeah and how's that working out for you? Happy to have put on a good show to narrowly and cruelly lose out?

With an international level midfield and defense you probably wouldn't have been required to play a playoff game and would be in the WC now.

Alternatively, you could just stop conceding leads in the last 5 minutes. That would work.

noodler

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't think Moscow is a place where you can expect 3 points. Russia's team is still a strong one and in Arshavin they have a player who can make something out of nothing to win a game (ask Liverpool fans).

When do we EVER, hell when have we ever gotten 3 away points from a team of decent standing?

Still that Scotland game?

Just makes the French debacle even more annoying.

JPA

GuanYin wrote: »

Yeah and how's that working out for you? Happy to have put on a good show to narrowly and cruelly lose out?

With an international level midfield and defense you probably wouldn't have been required to play a playoff game and would be in the WC now.

Alternatively, you could just stop conceding leads in the last 5 minutes. That would work.

If we had better players we'd be a better team? Run that by me again.

noodler

GuanYin wrote: »

Yeah and how's that working out for you? Happy to have put on a good show to narrowly and cruelly lose out?

With an international level midfield and defense you probably wouldn't have been required to play a playoff game and would be in the WC now.

Alternatively, you could just stop conceding leads in the last 5 minutes. That would work.

Not too sure what your point is here. Bar two blatant handballs by the French captain we were well worthy of a place in the WC.

Johner

GuanYin wrote: »

Didn't you guys lose to France at home?

Obviously it means in the group stage.

GuanYin

JPA wrote: »

If we had better players we'd be a better team? Run that by me again.

Well if you played the best players available it might help. But I was actually countering the point of optimism on the draw. So ya know, it is what it is.

noodler wrote: »

Not too sure what your point is here. Bar two blatant handballs by the French captain we were well worthy of a place in the WC.

I'd maintain that if you couldn't finish a weak team in a game that you clearly dominated for 90 minutes then you weren't worthy.

If Henry hadn't handled the ball and you'd lost the penalty shoot out would you have been more worthy than France for a place in the WC?

Ireland lost the opportunity to win a place in the WC through that handball but they were never at any stage in the lead to go through in the tie.


My point is, you can rest on the laurels of that performance and a "well we nearly were in a position where we might have had a chance to go through" but right now I think the Irish team looks to be in a bleak position.

Johner wrote: »

Obviously it means in the group stage.

Ohh we can pick and choose the games that count towards being beaten/unbeaten? Cool!

CHD

GuanYin wrote: »

Yeah and how's that working out for you? Happy to have put on a good show to narrowly and cruelly lose out?

With an international level midfield and defense you probably wouldn't have been required to play a playoff game and would be in the WC now.

Alternatively, you could just stop conceding leads in the last 5 minutes. That would work.

Yeah and if we had Messi, Villa and Drogba we would have the worlds greatest attack. We are a small country with a shít league. We punch well above our weight and the current pool of players will keep that up. Expecting to do well all the time is laughable, you make us out to be a fallen power or something.

Good draw and I think we will run top close. Fear nobody in a playoff. C'mon Ireland.

GuanYin

CHD wrote: »

Yeah and if we had Messi, Villa and Drogba we would have the worlds greatest attack. We are a small country with a shít league. We punch well above our weight and the current pool of players will keep that up. Expecting to do well all the time is laughable, you make us out to be a fallen power or something.

I don't expect you to do well, in fact I agree, I think it is laughable that posters here think that two strong world cup qualified teams is a good draw.

Good draw and I think we will run top close. Fear nobody in a playoff. C'mon Ireland.

yeah, I think you'll finish in the top half of that group, maybe 3rd?

OPENROAD

Russia to top group imo

GLaDOS

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't expect you to do well, in fact I agree, I think it is laughable that posters here think that two strong world cup qualified teams is a good draw.

Russia didn't qualify for the world cup, apart from maybe Croatia (?) every other team in pot 1 did, so by that logic, Russia were a good team to get.

It's all about relativity, could have gotten a much harder team than Russia.

IrishKev

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't expect you to do well, in fact I agree, I think it is laughable that posters here think that two strong world cup qualified teams is a good draw.

Wow, are you serious? What, so Russia out of a possible Germany, Holland, Portugal or Spain is a bad draw? Slovakia out of a possible Serbia, Turkey, Czech Republic or (our favourite) Switzerland is a bad draw? Seems to me that you're just a bit of an oul pessimist. It's you, imo, that's laughable.

CHD

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't expect you to do well, in fact I agree, I think it is laughable that posters here think that two strong world cup qualified teams is a good draw.



yeah, I think you'll finish in the top half of that group, maybe 3rd?

International football is a whole different animal, people don't realise this. While we are not gifted with lots of talented footballers we do have a squad of lads who give 110% when they pull on that green jersey. A committed performance can beat any national team and Ireland are capable of pulling off qualification. Just look at what you lot have done lately, anything is possible.

GuanYin

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Russia didn't qualify for the world cup, apart from maybe Croatia (?) every other team in pot 1 did, so by that logic, Russia were a good team to get.

It's all about relativity, could have gotten a much harder team than Russia.

Whoops, my bad.

I think it's faulty logic though. I think Croatia, Portugal and France were better options for you. Even, perhaps, England.

IrishKev wrote: »

Wow, are you serious? What, so Russia out of a possible Germany, Holland, Portugal or Spain is a bad draw? Slovakia out of a possible Serbia, Turkey, Czech Republic or (our favourite) Switzerland is a bad draw? Seems to me that you're just a bit of an oul pessimist. It's you, imo, that's laughable.

Damn right. I think Portugal was certainly a better option, I think Switzerland or the Czech's are a better option. At least if I was looking at teams in a draw against us.

CHD wrote: »

International football is a whole different animal, people don't realise this. While we are not gifted with lots of talented footballers we do have a squad of lads who give 110% when they pull on that green jersey. A committed performance can beat any national team and Ireland are capable of pulling off qualification. Just look at what you lot have done lately, anything is possible.

Oh yeah, I know. USA manages purely on tempo and effort. When we drop these, we lose. We're in pretty much the same position as you guys with players, but in a much weaker qualifying pool. We'd fare no better in UEFA qualifying. Our level will be exposed in the FIFA WC and I'd be happy with 3rd place.

But the fact of the matter is basic skills like finishing and concentration are obviously sorely lacking in the Irish team. I mean, by your logic any team can qualify and we know that isn't the case. Some of the players are young and will improve with experience, but some just aren't good enough.

IrishKev

GuanYin wrote: »

Whoops, my bad.

I think it's faulty logic though. I think Croatia, Portugal and France were better options for you. Even, perhaps, England.

Next time you might do a small bit of research before calling people "laughable", seems a bit unfair commenting on something that you seem to know little about..

GLaDOS

GuanYin wrote: »

Whoops, my bad.

I think it's faulty logic though. I think Croatia, Portugal and France were better options for you. Even, perhaps, England.

Croatia and Portugal I'd agree, though not by much, but would be much easier away games. France would be close enough to Russia for me (and if they have a new coach they could be a completely different team to the one we played). Not a chance with England, top squad and top coach.

I think second is a realistic target, and topping the group isn't unrealistic, just very difficult. Hopefully Hiddink wont be with Russia at that point.

Aidric

I'm quite pleased with that draw and Trappatoni seemed likewise. The away trips will be expensive and largely unappealing but we have a great chance of qualifying. It's sick to think it's 88 since we were last at the euros.

GuanYin

IrishKev wrote: »

Next time you might do a small bit of research before calling people "laughable", seems a bit unfair commenting on something that you seem to know little about..

Actually, I didn't call anyone laughable.

I think I know just as much about it as you. At least I've displayed more of a knowledge as I've listed my arguments and reasoning for my opinions. You've just insulted me and dismissed posts you don't agree with.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Croatia and Portugal I'd agree, though not by much, but would be much easier away games. France would be close enough to Russia for me (and if they have a new coach they could be a completely different team to the one we played). Not a chance with England, top squad and top coach.

I think second is a realistic target, and topping the group isn't unrealistic, just very difficult. Hopefully Hiddink wont be with Russia at that point.

Well the away games would be a strong reason for preferring those teams. England do not raise their game for weaker teams (which Ireland are) while Ireland quite clearly raise their game for stronger teams and England can be very inconsistent. But I think in a game of Ireland V. England, current form means little.

I think you will run close to 2nd, I still think 3rd is more likely. Of course it's really hard to judge, things could change drastically for any team in the next few months.

IrishKev

GuanYin wrote: »

Actually, I didn't call anyone laughable.

I think I know just as much about it as you. At least I've displayed more of a knowledge as I've listed my arguments and reasoning for my opinions. You've just insulted me and dismissed posts you don't agree with.

Well you didn't call anybody laughable but you said that their comments were, which is splitting hairs really? And well you didn't know much about the Euro 2012 draw did you? That is what I was saying you didn't know much about, you said it was laughable that people were saying Russia was a good draw when you clearly didn't know that the likes of Holland and Spain were in the same pot, which suggests to say that you didn't seem to know much about the topic. That's not insulting is it? I was just merely stating fact, much like if I said I was insulted by you calling Ireland a weaker team you would disagree wouldn't you? (Just for the record I don't think Ireland are a weak team, (and I am being unbiased here) any team that can give both of the last World Cup finals a fair run for their money can't be described as a weak team imo)

I think Ireland can easily finish second and arguably first, we did it in the last qualifiers by eliminating Bulgaria and (I know it's 8 years ago but still!) we did it against Holland in 2002 didn't we? Presuming Trap lets them play more expressive football like we saw in Paris, and hopefully we'll see less of the displays that we saw against weaker teams, we'll have no trouble getting through. And I have high hopes for the new Coleman for Everton, could be a good new addition to the squad, and hopefully would further strenghen our already pretty good defence line. (Bar Paul McShane of course )

leninbenjamin

GuanYin wrote: »

Slovakia shouldn't be underestimated, they came strongly through a competitive group with Czechs and Slovenia and they have some very good players right through the team, in particular Hamsik, Vittek ans Sestak, but with good young players coming through (Jendrisek, Pekarik).

Could say the exact same thing about us tbh. They have some great individual talent, and are pretty well organised. I wouldn't agree that it goes right through the team though, They have quite a number of average players in their squad, just like ourselves. A good side, but they overachieved the last campaign. Like every small nation with limited resources, maintaining their current performance levels will be the big challenge. On paper at least we're very similar imo, I think it should be a fairly even race.

As for Russia, they overachieved massively in the last Euros and I don't think they are good enough to be first seeds tbh. Even though they have some handy players in the likes of Zhirkov, they rely on Arshavin for everything they do. Stop Arshavin, stop Russia. France, Spain, Portugal, England for example have much more quality throughout their teams. We can match them on a given day, but then the fullback will pop up and win the game when we've been watching the strikers all day long. Russia don't have that same depth of quality in their squad. They should still come top of the group, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if both ourselves and Slovakia managed to do one over them.

Overall, It's a pretty fair draw for us tbh. We know we're limited, but there are no real reasons to fear either team, each of the top 3 are well capable of taking 3 points off the others. I'd be confident without expecting too much, just like I was last time round. Should be an entertaining enough group at least.

noodler

GuanYin wrote: »

I'd maintain that if you couldn't finish a weak team in a game that you clearly dominated for 90 minutes then you weren't worthy.

If Henry hadn't handled the ball and you'd lost the penalty shoot out would you have been more worthy than France for a place in the WC?

Ireland lost the opportunity to win a place in the WC through that handball but they were never at any stage in the lead to go through in the tie.


My point is, you can rest on the laurels of that performance and a "well we nearly were in a position where we might have had a chance to go through" but right now I think the Irish team looks to be in a bleak position.



Ohh we can pick and choose the games that count towards being beaten/unbeaten? Cool!

Yeah, bullsh1t reasoning unfortunately, falls down when you try and apply it to the French. They got through on what basis then? Becasue if we didn't deserve it, how exactly did they?

JPA

GuanYin wrote: »

Well the away games would be a strong reason for preferring those teams. England do not raise their game for weaker teams (which Ireland are) while Ireland quite clearly raise their game for stronger teams and England can be very inconsistent. But I think in a game of Ireland V. England, current form means little.

I think you will run close to 2nd, I still think 3rd is more likely. Of course it's really hard to judge, things could change drastically for any team in the next few months.

England aren't inconsistent anymore, they won 9 out of 10 qualifying games only losing a game when qualified. They are completely different since Capello took over. We'd have been all excited and that by the prospect of facing England but would have been doing well to get 1 point.

GuanYin

IrishKev wrote: »

Well you didn't call anybody laughable but you said that their comments were, which is splitting hairs really?

No I don't think it is, but that's for the mods to decide.

And well you didn't know much about the Euro 2012 draw did you?
That is what I was saying you didn't know much about, you said it was laughable that people were saying Russia was a good draw when you clearly didn't know that the likes of Holland and Spain were in the same pot, which suggests to say that you didn't seem to know much about the topic.

What gives you that impression? I certainly knew the seeded teams. "the likes" of Portugal, Croatia and France were also in the top seeds and all morely likely to yield points at home to Ireland.

That's not insulting is it? I was just merely stating fact, much like if I said I was insulted by you calling Ireland a weaker team you would disagree wouldn't you? (Just for the record I don't think Ireland are a weak team, (and I am being unbiased here) any team that can give both of the last World Cup finals a fair run for their money can't be described as a weak team imo)

What fact were you stating? You assumed I know nothing about the Euro draw, I do. There was no Fact in your post.

You may not think Ireland are a weak team, but against whom are you comparing them? In the draw, they are ranked in the 19th-26th place teams out of 52.

As for giving their qualifying opposition a run for their money. They beat Bulgaria to second place. I don't think that is a huge feat in itself.

OPENROAD

Betting suggests Ireland not to qualify

http://www.paddypower.com/football/international-football/euro-2012?ev_oc_grp_ids=225551


http://www.paddypower.com/football/international-football/euro-2012?ev_oc_grp_ids=225546

IrishKev

GuanYin wrote: »

No I don't think it is, but that's for the mods to decide.

What gives you that impression? I certainly knew the seeded teams. "the likes" of Portugal, Croatia and France were also in the top seeds and all morely likely to yield points at home to Ireland.



What fact were you stating? You assumed I know nothing about the Euro draw, I do. There was no Fact in your post.

You may not think Ireland are a weak team, but against whom are you comparing them? In the draw, they are ranked in the 19th-26th place teams out of 52.

As for giving their qualifying opposition a run for their money. They beat Bulgaria to second place. I don't think that is a huge feat in itself.

The fact that I was stating was on the basis that you didn't know the top seeded teams, as you thought Russia was a bad draw, when in fact considering the other teams in pool 1, Russia was actually a good draw for us. That does seem to convey that you didn't know much about the draw I think you'll agree. You clearly didn't know the top seeded teams as you said yourself until somebody pointed them out to you, so why are you now saying that you did?

And as for the fact that Ireland are or aren't a weak team, do you think that a team that can get two draws against the World Champs, and beat the world cup runner ups in their own back yard (albeit losing at Croker, but it was a deflection!! :P) should be in with the likes of Bosniz-Herzigovina, Scotland, Finland and Norway?

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Could say the exact same thing about us tbh.

I think that on the whole, Ireland have a weaker squad. Dunne is the only player in the important center positions that is of international standard.

As for Russia, they overachieved massively in the last Euros and I don't think they are good enough to be first seeds tbh. Even though they have some handy players in the likes of Zhirkov, they rely on Arshavin for everything they do. Stop Arshavin, stop Russia. France, Spain, Portugal, England for example have much more quality throughout their teams.

Russia have more attacking threat than Portugal and Croatia and at home, are more difficult to beat than France, Portugal or Croatia.

it wouldn't surprise me if both ourselves and Slovakia managed to do one over them.

I think Ireland are more than capable of beating either Slovakia or Russia at home. Away I don't think they can and then they must rely on killing off the weaker teams in the group, which traditionally has been where they fall down.

Overall, It's a pretty fair draw for us tbh. We know we're limited, but there are

no real reasons to fear either team, each of the top 3 are well capable of taking 3 points off the others. I'd be confident without expecting too much, just like I was last time round. Should be an entertaining enough group at least.

I agree, it should be entertaining and if I were an Ireland supporter, I'd be excited to see Arshavin I do think it's middle of the road, it could have been far worse, but it could have been far better.

noodler wrote: »

Yeah, bullsh1t reasoning unfortunately, falls down when you try and apply it to the French. They got through on what basis then? Becasue if we didn't deserve it, how exactly did they?

France got through on the basis that they fairly beat Ireland in Dublin and despite the fact that Ireland dominated the play in Paris, they couldn't score a second goal. Sure, they were cheated for Gallas's goal, but rightly or wrongly, Anelka could easily have had a penalty and most of the argument for the WC presence relies on Ireland winning a penalty shootout against France.

JPA wrote: »

England aren't inconsistent anymore, they won 9 out of 10 qualifying games only losing a game when qualified. They are completely different since Capello took over. We'd have been all excited and that by the prospect of facing England but would have been doing well to get 1 point.

I'll give you that. They certainly won games even when not playing well, but then they have done that lots in their qualifying campaigns. They do look a better team under Capello, but I still think form goes out the windows in derby games.

GuanYin

IrishKev wrote: »

The fact that I was stating was on the basis that you didn't know the top seeded teams, as you thought Russia was a bad draw, when in fact considering the other teams in pool 1, Russia was actually a good draw for us. That does seem to convey that you didn't know much about the draw I think you'll agree. You clearly didn't know the top seeded teams as you said yourself until somebody pointed them out to you, so why are you now saying that you did?

Show me where I didn't know the seeded teams? I mistakenly said Russia qualified for the WC (they didn't obviously) but show me the post where I didn't know the top seeds. Quote it here.

As for Russia a good draw? I pointed out that their are weaker teams I would pick.

And as for the fact that Ireland are or aren't a weak team, do you think that a team that can get two draws against the World Champs, and beat the world cup runner ups in their own back yard (albeit losing at Croker, but it was a deflection!! :P) should be in with the likes of Bosniz-Herzigovina, Scotland, Finland and Norway?

By that logic, you think that USA, having convincingly beaten Spain convincingly in the Confederations Cup should be at their level of seeding?

For the record, you managed a last gasp goal against 10 man a ten man Italy in one of those games and you didn't beat France. The match is officially counted as a tie game. As I said, Ireland rise to big team matches, but as a team that couldn't beat Montenegro at home, Bulgaria home or away and beat Georgia at home thanks to a horrific penalty decision, yes, I think they are currently seeded currectly.

The_B_Man

Playoffs
Just having a look at who I think will auto-qualify, assuming Russia do and we're turfed into the playoffs:

best runner up: Greece

Group I: Spain, Czech Republic, SCOTLAND Lithuania, Liechtenstein
Group H: Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Cyprus, Iceland
Group G: ENGLAND, Switzerland, Bulgaria, WALES, Montenegro
Group F: Croatia, Greece, Israel, Latvia, Georgia, Malta
Group E: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Moldova, San Marino
Group France, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belarus, Albania, Luxembourg
Group C: Italy, Serbia, NORTHERN IRELAND, Slovenia, Estonia, Faroe Islands
Group B: Russia, Slovakia, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, FYR Macedonia, Armenia, Andorra
Group A: Germany, Turkey, Austria, Belgium, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan

Jesus that a terrible playoff group
Czech Rep, Denmark, Swiss :mad:
Sweden, Romania, Serbia
Rep of Ireland, Turkey :mad:

Or if we get through as best 2nd place, then swap us out for Greece/Israel!
Of if we win overall, then it'll be Russia in the playoffs. Gonna be tough for anyone who doesnt finish top!

noodler

GuanYin wrote: »

France got through on the basis that they fairly beat Ireland in Dublin and despite the fact that Ireland dominated the play in Paris, they couldn't score a second goal. Sure, they were cheated for Gallas's goal, but rightly or wrongly, Anelka could easily have had a penalty and most of the argument for the WC presence relies on Ireland winning a penalty shootout against France.

What?

We beat them in France too, you know?

You're line of reasoning is entirely flawed - we didn't deserve to go through because we didn't take our chances? Yet..the French did?

Sorry, no.

GLaDOS

noodler wrote: »

We beat them in France too, you know?

We drew after extra time technically

OPENROAD

noodler wrote: »

We beat them in France too, you know?

.

When?

IrishKev

GuanYin wrote: »

I don't expect you to do well, in fact I agree, I think it is laughable that posters here think that two strong world cup qualified teams is a good draw.

Well my bad, but I picked it up from this post and the "Whoops, my bad" post that you didn't know the other teams in Pot 1, on re-reading I see that I might have picked it up wrong. Fair enough.

GuanYin wrote: »

By that logic, you think that USA, having convincingly beaten Spain convincingly in the Confederations Cup should be at their level of seeding?

No, but Ireland have always been there or there abouts in the qualifying stages, we've always put up a battle and have narrowly missed out on qualification multiple times. In comparison, when have Bosnia and Herzegovina achieved much or put up a fight to any pot 1 teams?

Edit: And yes, I forgotto mention what the other posters said above, Ireland DID beat France, if you want to get all technical about it Ireland beat France in 90 minutes, therefore it goes down as a win. And over the two legs, any unbiased person would agree that Ireland deserved the place in SA, France were narrowly better in Croker but we completely overshadowed them in Paris. AND Anelkas "penalty" was clearly not a penalty, its so annoying that anyone who is defending the French brings that up as if they deserved a peno, it was a clear dive! I saw a YouTube vid showing one angle where it slightly appears that Given touched him if you slow it down X1,000,000,000, but any other angle shows that he was like a foot away from any part of Anelka. Pure diving, that's all it was.

CHD

OPENROAD wrote: »

When?

Paris, couple of months back. Remember that!

We won 1-0 in 90 mins.

OPENROAD

IrishKev wrote: »

Well my bad, but I picked it up from this post and the "Whoops, my bad" post that you didn't know the other teams in Pot 1, on re-reading I see that I might have picked it up wrong. Fair enough.



No, but Ireland have always been there or there abouts in the qualifying stages, we've always put up a battle and have narrowly missed out on qualification multiple times. In comparison, when have Bosnia and Herzegovina achieved much or put up a fight to any pot 1 teams?

The fact is though they have not qualified, have they narrowly missed out multiple times? I would certainly not have had Ireland down as an unlucky team in qualifiers, but I am open to correction.

OPENROAD

CHD wrote: »

Paris, couple of months back. Remember that!

We won 1-0 in 90 mins.

Match wasn't over 90 mins though. The final score was 1-1 William Gallas

CHD

OPENROAD wrote: »

Match wasn't over 90 mins though. The final score was 1-1 William Gallas

Yeah it was.

They won 0-1

We won 0-1

Game over, must be settled though so in extra time France win

In your standard 90 min game of football we beat France in Paris.

noodler

CHD wrote: »

Yeah it was.

They won 0-1

We won 0-1

Game over, must be settled though so in extra time France win

In your standard 90 min game of football we beat France in Paris.

Exactly.

Theres a very good reason it went to ET.

Anyway that is beside the point, the argument was that we somehow didn't deserve to go through which is bullsh1t when applied to France.

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

As I said, Ireland rise to big team matches, but as a team that couldn't beat Montenegro at home

The home game against Montenegro was a dead rubber, with no bearing on placings etc.

I was at the game, the players, on both sides, gave it a smidge more attention than a friendly in June.

noodler

Des wrote: »

The home game against Montenegro was a dead rubber, with no bearing on placings etc.

I was at the game, the players, on both sides, gave it a smidge more attention than a friendly in June.

Precisely, awful example by the way.

GuanYin

IrishKev wrote: »

Edit: And yes, I forgotto mention what the other posters said above, Ireland DID beat France, if you want to get all technical about it Ireland beat France in 90 minutes,

CHD wrote: »

Paris, couple of months back. Remember that!

We won 1-0 in 90 mins.

CHD wrote: »

In your standard 90 min game of football we beat France in Paris.

noodler wrote: »

Exactly.

Theres a very good reason it went to ET.

Anyway that is beside the point, the argument was that we somehow didn't deserve to go through which is bullsh1t when applied to France.

Ehh no. FIFA and UEFA, the guys who keep track of these things, count the game as a tie. 1-1 a.e.t. is the result and as such Ireland lose overall 2-1. This, among other reasons, is why a second leg home draw is an advantage.

You can wish and want the rules to state that that game was an Ireland win, but it wasn't, it isn't counted as an Irish win by FIFA or UEFA. It doesn't appear in the win column of Irelands overall WDL record. Ergo, it isn't a win. Of course, if you feel you must resort to making up rules or changing rules to better your argument, that is another matter.

Actually, when was the last time Ireland beat a team from a higher seeded pot in a competitive game?

Des wrote: »

The home game against Montenegro was a dead rubber, with no bearing on placings etc.

I was at the game, the players, on both sides, gave it a smidge more attention than a friendly in June.

OK and that makes the result better how?

CHD

GuanYin wrote: »

Ehh no. FIFA and UEFA, the guys who keep track of these things, count the game as a tie. 1-1 a.e.t. is the result and as such Ireland lose overall 2-1. This, among other reasons, is why a second leg home draw is an advantage.

You can wish and want the rules to state that that game was an Ireland win, but it wasn't, it isn't counted as an Irish win by FIFA or UEFA. It doesn't appear in the win column of Irelands overall WDL record. Ergo, it isn't a win. Of course, if you feel you must resort to making up rules or changing rules to better your argument, that is another matter.

Actually, when was the last time Ireland beat a team from a higher seeded pot in a competitive game?


OK and that makes the result better how?

Here is a fact for you.

In a 90 minute game in Paris Ireland beat France 1-0.

I don't care what FIFA see it as the fact is we won 1-0.

_blank_

Well, it wasn't a game I'd include in trying to prove that Ireland are worse than most people here seem to think.

********************

Lads, it's fairly embarrassing to be claiming that Ireland beat France in Paris.

They didn't.

End of.

noodler

Des wrote: »

Well, it wasn't a game I'd include in trying to prove that Ireland are worse than most people here seem to think.

********************

Lads, it's fairly embarrassing to be claiming that Ireland beat France in Paris.

They didn't.

End of.

Are you for real?

So their win in Dublin counts but ours doesn't simply because their win was in the first leg?

It is embaressing you can't look at it reasonably without throwing silly adjectives around.

We won in Paris alright - thats why the game went to Extra-Time.

CHD

Des wrote: »

Well, it wasn't a game I'd include in trying to prove that Ireland are worse than most people here seem to think.

********************

Lads, it's fairly embarrassing to be claiming that Ireland beat France in Paris.

They didn't.

End of.

What was the score then in the match in Paris?

_blank_

There was no 90 minute game in Paris.

I can't believe people are actually spewing this crap, it feels like an episode of the twilight zone.

noodler

Des wrote: »

There was no 90 minute game in Paris.

I can't believe people are actually spewing this crap, it feels like an episode of the twilight zone.

You are embaressing yourself.

ET is in addition to both games.

_blank_

CHD wrote: »

What was the score then in the match in Paris?

1-1

GuanYin

CHD wrote: »

Here is a fact for you.

In a 90 minute game in Paris Ireland beat France 1-0.

I don't care what FIFA see it as the fact is we won 1-0.

Only for a given definition of "fact" that exists the heads of those who wantto believe something that clearly isn't the case.

Fact 1:The game wasn't for 90 minutes, the game was for 120 minutes.

Unless you are counting the extra time as a separate 30 minute game?

Can you show me where in the rules that this is the case?

FIFA rules wrote:

with a fixture won in extra time, the score at the end of normal time is superseded.

noodler

Des wrote: »

1-1

No that was AET, full time score was 0-1.

CHD

no 90 minute game? What? Seriously idiotic Des. Why am I bothering with someone who hates everything FAI/Ireland and Guanyin who obv thinks we are a 3rd world country of football.

Goooooooooooooooood Luck.

noodler

Put it this way, had we won in Paris in a theoretical first leg, you would still have the typical begrudery nonsense that France did beat us in Dublin if that 2nd leg had finished 0-1 at full time and 1-1 AET.